Standing Committee F

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Clause 9 - The registrar

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 304, in 
clause 9, page 3, line 32, after 'registrar'')', insert 
 'who is appropriately qualified in terms of subsection (1A) below'.—[Mr. Gray.]

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 305, in
clause 9, page 3, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(1A) ''Appropriately qualified'' means that the individual— 
 (a) has a good knowledge of hunting with dogs in the United Kingdom or Ireland, and 
 (b) is entirely impartial as to hunting, and ''impartial'' means that he has had no association with hunting or any organization which directly or indirectly supports, opposes, or has supported or opposed, hunting, and 
 (c) he neither has nor has had any membership or affiliations at any time with a party represented in the House of Commons.'.

James Gray: The Committee will recall that before lunch we had started to discuss the tribunal in schedule 2, and the qualifications of the registrar and the sort of person that he should be. I made the point that we have finished discussing the red meat of the Bill. We did not like clause 8 and the way in which the Committee accepted it. None the less, it has been accepted and is now part of the Bill. What is important now is that the debate becomes more like an ordinary Committee stage in which we all, jointly and severally, seek a way to ensure that the tribunal and the registrar work properly.
 It is especially important that the tribunal and the registrar are seen to be working properly, which is a point that the Minister often made as far back as at the hearings at Portcullis house. He went to some length to say that he is trying to find an answer to the long-running problem relating to hunting with dogs that is acceptable to all and that stands the test of time, as he keeps saying. The Bill must be well drafted and first class in every way. It therefore behoves all of us, including Opposition Members, who dislike the Bill and what clause 8 will do, to try to find ways of making the tribunal and registrar work as satisfactorily as possible under manifestly unsatisfactory conditions. 
 That is why we are moving away from the red meat of the debate about hunting into a drier but equally important debate about what will happen once the Bill becomes law. All the parties seem to agree that that should be the case, and I hope that the Committee's approach will become more consensual. Our aim is not only to ensure that the tribunal works properly but, crucially, to ensure that it is seen to be working 
 properly by both parts of the argument or, if we include the Middle Way Group, all three parts. The method for deciding whether a particular activity should be registered must be sensible and agreeable. 
 We are therefore concerned that the registrar is being asked to make a series of what we believe to be subjective decisions. The registrar is not a judge, a vet or someone who must make subjective decisions, but the person whose job it is to keep a register of permitted hunts and what those hunts are allowed to do. That is an extremely important distinction. After all, it is extremely likely that every application under the Bill will go to appeal and be heard by the tribunal. An applicant may appeal because the registrar has found against him, or the opponents of hunting may appeal because they do not like the fact that registration has occurred. 
 It is the members of a tribunal who will have to make the judgments, weigh up the arguments and bring a degree of subjectivity to determine whether a hunt should be allowed. That should not be the job of a registrar, but of the tribunal. A judge in a court of law applies the law, but also applies his own wisdom, intelligence and common sense to decide a case. The same applies to the tribunal, which must seek to apply the law to the letter, but may also have to make judgments to reach a far and reasonable conclusion. 
 Under the Bill, the registrar will be asked to make all sorts of extraordinarily subjective judgments that he should be making objectively. The main reason for that is that we as a Committee have failed to nail down precisely what is right, wrong and indifferent in terms of utility tests and cruelty tests. We have left that wide open to interpretation in a variety of different ways. 
 That is particularly true with regard to what is cruel. Which is most cruel: shooting at night with a shotgun, snaring or hunting with dogs? I have asked that question of the Committee several times and no one has yet answered it. It is a subjective judgment, and members of the Committee have very different opinions. We do not know whether snaring is more or less cruel than hunting with dogs. If any Government Member has a view on that, I challenge them to tell me now. 
 Under the hierarchy of suffering, as I described it, which we discussed a couple of weeks ago, I sought to persuade the Government that it was important to include in the Bill, or in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, an opinion on which practices are believed to be more or less cruel. I sought to get the Committee to agree to that, but the Committee declined to do so by rejecting my amendment. 
 Once the Bill is enacted, we will be saying to the registrar, ''We are sorry, but we are unable to judge which of those practices is more cruel.'' Therefore, he will have no guidance to rely on when approached, for example, by someone from the Beaufort country, in my own constituency, who argues that hunting with dogs is less cruel, while at the same time the Chippenham branch of the League Against Cruel Sports argues that hunting with dogs is not the best way because shooting with shotguns by night is less cruel, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of 
 Cruelty to Animals argues that trapping in boxes is less cruel. Who knows what the outcome of that would be? 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

James Gray: Never has an oration in this place been so interrupted—first by lunch and then by a vote. I will now seek to continue so that Labour Members can understand the crystal logic of what I am saying. [Interruption.] If the Minister would stop chatting he might be able to follow this. He is not very good at logic, but if he listens carefully he might improve.
 The system will work only if it is seen to be fair and above reproach. That is what we all should aim for. The registrar's job must be to register the applications; he can either register the hunt or turn it down. It should be up to the tribunal—the people who make the value judgments—to decide whether the registrar's decision is correct. For that system to work in all its beautiful simplicity—many Opposition Members doubt whether it will work in any shape or form—the tests and the job of the registrar must be as objective as possible. We are concerned that the Bill will make objectivity extremely difficult. The amendments would therefore require the registrar to be impartial. We have laid down three ways in which he should be qualified. First, he should have knowledge of hunting and the area in question. Secondly, he should be impartial and be proved to be impartial. Thirdly, he should not be party political. 
 All three qualifications seem eminently sensible. We have already dealt with local knowledge. The NFU briefing, which I quoted this morning, said that the registrar should have local knowledge if he is to have any chance of achieving an impartial judgment. The party political point seems reasonably self-explanatory. If someone has an allegiance to either the Conservative or the Labour party it would be difficult to trust his judgment. In any case, as a civil servant the registrar would be precluded from involvement in party political activity. Both those categories are reasonably straightforward. The more difficult category, which perhaps needs to be explained in slightly more detail, is the question of the impartiality of his judgment. 
 The difficulty lies in the subjective nature of some of the things that he is asked to do. We have expanded on some of those objective tests already. The utility test, for example, requires the applicant to show that the mammal to be hunted causes ''serious damage'' to the matters listed. As we discussed the other day, he would have to show that the proposed hunting would make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of such damage. We sought to extract from the Minister a clear definition of the words ''serious damage'' and ''significant''. We did not get them. It will be left to the registrar to decide what is ''serious damage'' and what is ''significant''. Those are, by 
 definition, subjective judgments. Most people would come to a reasonable conclusion as to what is serious damage and what is a significant contribution to avoiding it. Most courts of law could come to a reasonable judgment about that. I expect it will end up in a court of law. 
 A very much more difficult issue is what constitutes cruelty. That seems to be the most central, subjective judgment, which we, in this Committee, have entirely failed to address. Had we done what I asked, which was for the Bill to put in clear terms—or for the Secretary of State to do so in subsequent guidance—that ''this'' is crueller than ''that'', the registrar would have had a relatively easy task to fulfil. Had people from the Beaufort country come along and said, ''We believe that using dogs is less cruel than trapping,'' and had LACS then said, ''No, we believe that using dogs is more cruel,'' the registrar could have referred to the guidance from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which would have made it plain which of those arguments was correct. He could then either have said, ''Fine, Messrs. Beaufort, you have got your licence,'' or ''Bad lack, Messrs. Beaufort, I am afraid you don't.'' It would have been a straightforward registration matter, entirely suitable for a civil servant to carry out. Civil servants are not qualified and should not be required to make large value judgments in the way in which the registrar would. 
 As we have demonstrated, the question of which method of dealing with foxes in particular, and other vermin in general, is least cruel is not a matter of simple proof. The Burns inquiry came to that conclusion. As is customary in Committee, I shall illustrate my point by using a quote. Lord Burns highlighted areas where he felt that further research was necessary. Referring in particular to foxhunting, he said: 
''really very little science has been done, either in terms of welfare effects of hunting or indeed of other methods of control''.
 How much research has been done, we do not know. As Lord Burns said, we do not know which is more cruel or which is less cruel. If Lord Burns does not know, how can we expect Mr. Smith, the registrar, a decent grade 7 civil servant, to know? The examination in Portcullis house could not come to any conclusion. It said that no conclusion had been arrived at as to whether there should be any form of ban on any form of hunting. The hearing in Portcullis house was unable to come to that conclusion but we are going to say to a grade 7 civil servant, ''Lord Burns cannot reach a conclusion, Portcullis house cannot reach a conclusion, the scientists have not reached a conclusion, there is no scientific evidence, we do not know which is more cruel or less cruel, but you, Mr. Smith, must make up your mind.''

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Surely, if the decision is so subjective—which it must be in the absence of the evidence—it will be open to different interpretations up and down the country by different registrars. In that case, this law cannot be applied universally and therefore is a bad law.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. One can imagine the case going to the High Court on a point of law, with one barrister saying, ''Here is a case that occurred three years ago, where the registrar concluded that hunting with dogs was fair.'' and another saying, ''Here is another case, from last week, where he said that using the Liberal Democrat's box for catching foxes was by far the best way of doing it. Which of these is correct?'' It would be up to the High Court judge to decide which was correct. Deciding the point in law he would examine this Bill in detail, but it would not give him the opportunity to come to that conclusion. It is, by definition, a subjective judgment. No scientific evidence was adduced either by Lord Burns or in the Portcullis house hearings. We would be leaving it to the civil servant to make that subjective judgment.
 Imagine the circumstances in the tribunal. What would happen? People seeking a licence to hunt would come along with a Professor MacDonald, of the wildlife conservation unit of the department of zoology at Oxford university. Professor MacDonald would say, ''I am a professor of zoology and I can prove scientifically that hunting is not cruel, so it is the best way of dealing with foxes.'' But then the LACS, the RSPCA and other organisations would come along with Stephen Harris, professor of environmental science at Bristol university, who would say, ''I'm Professor Harris of Bristol university and I can demonstrate scientifically that hunting with dogs is disgraceful, scandalous and wicked, and should be banned immediately.'' Both professors are distinguished academics—[Interruption.]

Hugo Swire: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I am finding it difficult to hear my hon. Friend's intelligent remarks because Labour Members are talking among themselves.

Marion Roe: I have already advised members of the Committee that they must keep in order so that we can hear the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Peter Bradley: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. How does the hon. Gentleman know that his hon. Friend's comments are intelligent if he cannot hear them?

Marion Roe: That is not a point of order.

James Gray: The operation of the registrar and the tribunal is not a matter for levity or cheap and silly points. Neither is it appropriate for Labour Members to chatter while doing constituency correspondence. We are debating extremely important matters and many thousands of people in the countryside are watching our proceedings today—

Alun Michael: Watching you make a fool of yourself.

James Gray: People reading today's Hansard will judge for themselves whether I am making a fool of myself. I do not believe that I am. The Minister, by sitting there—

Rob Marris: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I have been listening carefully to the debate and I suggest that the hon.
 Gentleman has been speaking to clause 8(2), which is not relevant to the amendment before us. He has spent all his time talking about cruelty.

Marion Roe: Order. It is for me to make that judgment.

James Gray: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, who tends to listen well. We have been speaking to the amendment because we are debating whether it is reasonable for the registrar to make a judgment on the application before him. If it is based on subjective rather than objective tests, it will be difficult for the registrar to reach a conclusion. By laying down the registrar's functions precisely, we are enabling him to make an appropriate judgment. The issue of cruelty as a subjective judgment under clause 8, now agreed by the Committee, is important to the proper job remit of the registrar. I hope that that is clear to the hon. Gentleman.
 The fact that two professors cannot agree on what is cruel fundamentally undermines the job description of the registrar. It is only sensible to specify that the registrar should have no bias, be knowledgeable about hunting in the local area, have no political affiliations and be seen as capable of reaching a sensible and unbiased conclusion. The difficulty, and this is where the hon. Gentleman's intervention is ''à point''—

Peter Bradley: Bien cuit?

James Gray: The PPS does not know what ''à point'' means. His intervention may have been right because the provisions will make it extraordinarily difficult for the registrar to reach an unbiased judgment. That is why we laid down in new schedule 1 a carefully worked out scheme under which hunting could be licensed. We say, ''Here are the good, bad and indifferent practices. Here is what should happen in a day's hunting. Here is how it will be regulated.'' It would be easy for the registrar to refer to that licence and say: ''Here is your licence. If you carry out the functions plainly laid out, no court of law could gainsay the terms under which hunting can be carried out.'' Leaving it to the registrar's personal judgment would be exposing him to endless legal tests about the means by which he reached his conclusion.
 Many precedents exist in English law and internationally for the sort of licensing that we propose. It would be eminently sensible and much better for the registrar to be given a job description akin to that which applies in Finland and Alberta, Canada, for example. 
 The Bill as drafted sets the registrar an impossible task, which will result in legal cases coming before the courts for years; it will not stand the test of time or be accepted by the pro or anti-hunting lobbies as being fair and above board. It will simply result in barneys between the two and bring the Bill into disrepute. Accepting the amendments would mean that the Bill would state precisely who the registrar should be and the job description, which would give the Bill a better chance of achieving reasonably universal acclaim.

Michael Foster: I am reluctant to speak on the amendment, but I am moved to do so by the hon. Gentleman's contribution. Had he allowed
 me to intervene on the subject of impartiality, the matter could have been cleared up quickly.
 The hon. Gentleman asked whether the views of Mr. John Bryant would be impartial in respect of amendments Nos. 304 and 305. He claimed that Mr. Bryant was my paid adviser when I introduced the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. Mr. Bryant did advise me and I suppose that he was paid, but certainly not by me. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would also like the matter cleared up as it relates to the impartiality of an individual who is fit to serve on a tribunal.

James Gray: I am happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman did not personally pay Mr. John Bryant but he obviously was paid; he has a long curriculum vitae. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that Mr. Bryant would be a suitable person to serve on a tribunal?

Marion Roe: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) I remind him that hon. Members should speak to the amendment and not stray.

Michael Foster: I will bear in mind what you say, Mrs. Roe, but I will answer the question posed by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) because it is appropriate to take interventions and respond accordingly. It is not my decision whether someone would be a suitable person to be a member of the tribunal. My public endorsement of any individual would harm their chances of being selected to become a member.
 I rose to clear up the misunderstanding that may have been created by the hon. Gentleman—

Marion Roe: Order. I remind hon. Members that tribunals are not part of the amendment. I ask members of the Committee please to keep to the amendments.
Mr. Foster rose—

James Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We are considering what is unbiased and who would be a proper person to be a registrar. The nature of unbiased opinion is important. I want to tease out from the hon. Gentleman whether he believes that someone like Mr. John Bryant, whose CV is as I described earlier, who has a long and distinguished career of being passionately anti-foxhunting, would be an appropriate person to become a registrar or a member of a tribunal.

Michael Foster: I made it clear that I would not endorse any particular individual, nor did I think that the Government would choose an individual with such a long public record of supporting a particular cause. I have some faith in the institution of government to pick as a registrar or member of a tribunal someone who can act impartially.

Edward Garnier: Some confusion has arisen in our debates, especially on this clause, not least because we understood from the Minister that not just one person but a number of individuals might carry out the functions of the registrar. In subsection (1), the Secretary of State for
 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ''shall appoint a person''—not a group of persons—
''to maintain a register for the purposes of this Act.''
 It is a little artificial to discuss the functions of the registrar without considering what he will do outside the maintenance of the register. Under subsection (6), 
''Service as the registrar is employment in the civil service of the State.''
 It will be interesting to discover whether the registrar is likely to be a current member of the civil service, or whether he or she will be appointed to that job from outside. That point is not central to our discussion, but it is important that my understanding of the wording be confirmed, which is that there will be one registrar only and that there will not be a collection of registrars on circuit dealing with applications for a licence and counter-evidence from those who oppose the granting of a licence. It is important to confirm that the registrar will essentially conduct a paper exercise, not oral hearings. 
 One has to read clause 17 to make any sense of clause 9. Under clause 17(2), 
''On receipt of an application the registrar shall—
(a) invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies to make written representations about the application within a specified period, and
(b) consider any written representations made by any of those bodies within that period.''
 I infer from clause 17 that the registrar will already have in front of him the evidential basis for passing the tests when dealing with a licence application. Having received the application and the supporting evidence that demonstrates that the applicant passes the tests specified in clause 8(1) and clause 8(2), the registrar will tell anyone who wishes to make written representations contrary to that, ''Write to me with your conclusions or counter-case within a given time.'' The registrar will be one person, conducting a written exercise and making a judgment based solely on that written evidence. I do not know how he will do that—in an affidavit or in letter form. No doubt the Minister will tell us. 
 We are not talking about an individual or a collection of individuals who will travel the country, receiving information from the interested parties. The comments that the Minister made this morning about a registrar being situated in Wales, Cumbria or wherever, are, as I understand the Bill, beside the point. The registrar, who is to conduct that written exercise and reach conclusions that are either adverse or beneficial to the applicant or to the prescribed animal welfare organisations, should be both knowledgeable and fair. The exercise is essentially administrative, not judicial, although the exercise that the administrative mind will have to go through will require the making of judgments. On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is correct. If the registrar made his decisions on a whim or on his personal preferences, or without knowledge, the system would fall into disrepute. That would do the House no good and would not redound to the benefit of the Bill or the office holder. 
 While examining my hon. Friend's amendments, it is worth considering how they fit in with the scheme that relates to the registrar, which begins at clause 9. Forgive me, Mrs. Roe, but I cannot confine myself simply to clause 9 if I am to understand the worth or otherwise of my hon. Friend's amendments. We need to understand what the registrar can and cannot do, but clause 9 refers only to the registrar keeping a register. That is not the only thing that he does; he has to make decisions. He is not there simply as a human filing cabinet, putting applications in his back pocket for other people to look at. Before he puts them in his back pocket, or his filing system, he does something; that something is set out in subsequent clauses. 
 The registrar is a civil servant and not a judge. He is not appointed by the Lord Chancellor and presumably when he is appointed he does not have to take the judicial oath, which is something that would have to be taken by a district judge, a Crown court recorder, a full-time judge and perhaps even a chairman on an appellate tribunal dealing with welfare benefit. The registrar carries on with his functions as an employee of the state and he will doubtless do that to the best of his abilities. 
 It is important to bear in mind what the registrar will have in front of him. Among other things, he will have the application from the potential licence holder. When making written applications to the registrar, the potential licence holder will be disadvantaged because under clause 11 the Secretary of State 
''may make a payment by way of a grant . . . to a prescribed animal welfare body.''
 No such provision is made in favour of the applicant. I am not sure how that inherent unfairness fits in with the declaration about section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how, given that lack of balance, the Secretary of State was able to make that declaration. 
 The registrar may have in front of him a counter-argument in the form of professional or other advice paid for by taxpayer's money, which will have been given to the ''prescribed animal welfare body.'' We do not know yet what the prescribed animal welfare bodies are, although some of us could make some interesting guesses. Nevertheless, the provision immediately creates an imbalance. The registrar ought to be wary of that and should be constrained by the amendments.

Gregory Barker: Given the absolutely central importance of the registrar and the prescribed animal welfare bodies, does my hon. and learned Friend not find it extraordinary that we are being asked to approve the legislation and vest these powers in the Secretary of Sate without knowing which bodies will be involved?

Edward Garnier: No, I am afraid that I do not find that in the least bit extraordinary. It forms a pattern with much of the Government's legislation that we have had to deal with in the House. I do not want to accuse my hon. Friend of being naïve, but when he has been here a few more years, he will realise that we get an awful lot of this sort of stuff boiling up from this
 Government. We have to do the best that we can with the legislation with which we are provided. I accept the arithmetic in the Committee Room and on the Floor of the House. By and large, there is little that we can do about such things, except complain. At the end of the day, we just have to live with it and try to do something else after the next election to improve the situation.
 To make sense of clause 9, we have to look at clause 17 to see how the registrar makes the determination. I repeat that there will be one registrar and not a collection of registrars travelling around the country. I hope that the Minister will tell me how the registrar will reach a conclusion based on the written representations that are made to him. In so far as the registrar considers the matter of proof at all, does the standard of proof apply? As I understand it, the burden of proof is on the applicant for the licence to discharge the burdens that he has been set in the clause 8 tests. Does the standard of proof have to be discharged only on the civil standard—that is, on the balance of probability—or will the applicant who has made that representation also have to satisfy the registrar on the criminal standard, that is, to make him sure of the case that the applicant for the licence is making?

Marion Roe: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman not to stray into arguments that might well come up under clause 17 and to stick to what is in front of us. I have listened carefully to him and have been rather generous because he is making a point that can be answered by the Minister. He should stick to the two amendments in the group.

Edward Garnier: I do not want to disagree with you for a moment, Mrs. Roe. However, if I might diffidently say so, if we are to make any sense of the legislation, we cannot look at things in isolation. If Standing Committees have any purpose, it is to scrutinise legislation and to seek to improve it or, if we cannot improve it, to get an explanation from the Government as to why they have drafted it as they have.
 While I can see what clause 9 is about, and while I understand the purpose of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, they cannot be looked at as though they were set in aspic and apart from the rest of the Bill. Any intelligent consideration of clause 9 must imply an understanding of those clauses subsequent to clause 9 that touch upon it. I am simply seeking information, through clause 17, to make us better able to understand clause 9 and to see whether my hon. Friend's amendments make a useful contribution to the drafting of the Bill. They certainly provide a helpful starting point for a debate about the functions of the registrar. I am reasonably sure that the Minister is capable of grafting on to his remarks answers to my questions that touch upon the functions of the registrar. I send the question of proof across his desk so that he can pick it up when the moment arises. 
 We are told at clause 9 that the registrar is not there simply ''to maintain a register'' but to reach decisions. It is essential that we draw a distinction between the role of the registrar in maintaining the register and in 
 dealing with licence applications and that of the tribunal which will, I suspect, be much bigger, not only in numbers but in the geographical location in which it can operate. As the Minister said this morning, just as there might be several employment tribunals dotted around the country, there might be several hunting appeal tribunals. However, they will all be dealing with a flow of information from a single registrar. 
 Perhaps I am wrong and the drafting of clause 9 is unclear and the Minister intends that there should be an office called the registrar, with several office-holders situated in different parts of the United Kingdom. In any event, we need the registrar, whether an individual or a collection of individuals, to import into the job the duties and conduct of a person who carries out a judicial function—albeit in an administrative or civil service role. Ministers are not judges, but in DEFRA—the matter may now be under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as it changes so often that it is difficult to keep up—Secretaries of State have to carry out quasi-judicial functions all of the time in dealing, for example, with planning applications. According to the Bill, the registrar, although a civil servant, will carry out quasi-judicial functions. To that extent, although it is unlikely that he will take a judicial oath, he must conduct himself with fairness and with absence of bias.

Alun Michael: I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks with interest because he is making some important points. Does he accept that many civil servants carry out semi-judicial responsibilities, but not usually directly in Departments? For example, he referred to the Planning Inspectorate, which carries out important duties and does so to an extremely high standard. It is respected in this country, and more widely.

Edward Garnier: I am sure that that is the case. Officials in the Benefits Agency have to reach decisions based on statute law in determining whether a citizen is entitled to a given benefit. Such officials have to perform a judgment exercise, even though technically they are not judges. Appeals on the result can be made to an equivalent of the hunting tribunal. It is nonetheless fair to point out that the quality of mind of decision makers in the Benefits Agency is affected by the absence of formal judicial training. They will do their best, and I am sure that the registrar will do his best, but he may not have the skills, training and experience of a magistrate, district judge or a full-time judge. To that extent, I think that the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire are well thought-out.

James Gray: The Minister might have hoped to make a good point, but he used a bad example. The Planning Inspectorate acts only on behalf of the Secretary of State, who sits in a quasi-judicial position in it. The civil servants in the inspectorate—at least as I understand it because I am no lawyer—do not sit in a quasi-judicial role at all. They merely advise the Secretary of State, who makes the judgments.

Edward Garnier: We could have all sorts of side arguments about different sorts of civil servant and different sorts of people who make decisions on behalf of the state. The inspectorate, which is based in Bristol, essentially performs a function on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Gregory Barker: Is not the clear difference, whether we are considering civil servants in benefits offices or the Planning Inspectorate, that those civil servants have a clearly defined set of criteria against which to make judgments? Their criteria are objective and clearly set out, so they can make judgments without judicial training. The criteria to be applied by the registrar are by definition subjective and without any scientific, clinical or veterinary substance to them.

Edward Garnier: I do not want to deal with that point, but it draws me on to a similar matter. Under subsection (3) the registrar will comply with regulations made by the Secretary of State and any directions given by the hunting tribunal. Obviously, we do not yet know what the directions given by the tribunal will be because no cases have been taken to it. It would be helpful if the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State with which the registrar must comply were already in existence. Such cases occur more and more often with the drafting of legislation. We are legislating in a vacuum. That is not a criticism of this legislation. I was on the Opposition Front Bench when we were considering the Access to Justice Bill in 1998–99. Approximately 25 or 30 regulation-making powers were given to the relative Secretary of State—who happened to be the Lord Chancellor—about which we knew nothing. I dare say many of them have still not been drafted, let alone passed through either House.
 We are expressing concerns via the amendments about the judicial qualities of the holder of the office of registrar without knowing the regulations by which he will be bound. The arguments are straightforward and I hope that the Minister can grapple with them without much difficulty. They ought to be aired—perhaps they ought to have been aired before the Bill was drafted. I look forward to hearing the comments of both my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and of the Minister.

Colin Pickthall: It is a great pity that there is no way that Hansard can record the fact that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, to his immense credit, could hardly keep a straight face this morning when he was proposing the amendments.

James Gray: Hansard can record that I can say that that is absolute nonsense.

Colin Pickthall: I interpreted from the hon. Gentleman's body language at the time that someone other than he had drafted the amendments, which simply amount to seeking a method to make it virtually impossible to find a registrar. It would have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had provided us with a list of examples of the schizophrenic paragons who could possibly fit the criteria that he proposes.

James Gray: The answer is: most civil servants.

Colin Pickthall: Schizophrenic paragons? That may be his idea of civil servants; it is not mine. In amendment No. 305, subsection (1A)(a) says that to be ''appropriately qualified'' this paragon is one who
''has a good knowledge of hunting with dogs''
 However, paragraph (b) stipulates that the registrar must be ''entirely impartial''. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said this morning, it is likely that someone who was intimately involved with hunting with dogs is likely to have acquired some strong views on either side of the argument. More importantly, he is open to being accused by one side or the other of having acquired those strong views. Paragraph (b) tells us that the registrar must have had 
''no association with hunting or any organization which directly or indirectly supports, opposes, or has supported or opposed, hunting''.
 ''No association'' could cover almost anyone. Take, for example, someone who is married to a hunter or to a member of the RSPCA or of LACS. They are associated, intimately indeed, with the very people whom the amendment seeks to exclude from being a registrar. They would be open to challenge. If these amendments were made, the past and the associates of every potential registrar would be open to scrutiny. Subsection (1A)(c) says of the registrar that ''appropriately qualified'' means that 
''he neither has nor has had any membership or affiliations at any time with a party represented in the House of Commons.''.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) said this morning, that would leave ''appropriately qualified'' to embrace the British National party, Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour party, the Greens, the Official Monster Raving Loony party, or any other party that is not represented in the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: ''The Natural Law party.''] The Natural Law Party no longer stands for political office.

Gregory Barker: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Minister is likely to appoint members of the BNP or the Official Monster Raving Loony party to these positions? I wish he would make serious points.

Colin Pickthall: Of course I am not suggesting such a thing, but it is the inexorable logic of the Opposition's amendment. It opens up the tantalising prospect of potential registrars having their life histories ransacked for evidence of political affiliation. Do not forget that the words ''nor has had'' cover a lifetime. Many students or young people, for example, join the Conservatives to find a spouse or to learn to play table tennis before going on to live blameless lives for many years, having left the party with a spouse or an expertise in ping-pong. Young people join political parties for a range of strange reasons, and they join some strange parties, which they leave shortly thereafter. They would all be ruled out by the amendment. A civil servant might be qualified for the job, but if he had been a member of the Labour party at university for a couple of years he would be ruled out.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is making some amusing points. The thrust of the amendment is that it would be a good idea for the registrar to know a good deal about hunting, to be impartial as to the issues
 between those who want a total ban and those who do not and not to be politically active. One can fiddle about with the wording and make clever jokes about this, that or the other, but does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the general thrust of the amendment?

Colin Pickthall: If what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said were couched in an amendment it might have made sense. However, that is not what the amendment says. He has to look at its precise wording.

James Gray: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is saying that he accepts the general principle behind the amendment and thinks it a good idea that the registrar should be free of party political bias. He might be right in saying that parts of the drafting are not perfect, but if he confirms that he accepts the principle that lies behind the amendment, I will happily seek to withdraw it and bring it back on Report, where I shall look forward to his support.

Colin Pickthall: I accept, of course, the principle of impartiality. The point that I am trying to get at is that the amendments use the idea of impartiality to put forward nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman wants to jump up to say that he wants to withdraw the amendment, we can move on swiftly.
 Many staunch members of the Liberal party—[Hon. Members: ''Not staunch!''] There are none in my constituency, but some staunch members of the Liberal party left it when the SDP swallowed it 20 years ago. Does that disqualify them from applying?

Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend give way?
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Colin Pickthall: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I said that I would be brief, and I intend to be, but I must correct something that I said. I mentioned those who left the Liberal party many years ago, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) reminds me that their party is no longer represented in Parliament, so the amendment would not cover them.

Lembit Öpik: It is said that the main problem with the old Liberal party was that it was so broadminded that it refused to take its own side in an argument. That may have been the cause of its demise.

Colin Pickthall: I am sure that many of us have a great fondness for some of the Liberals from the old days.

Judy Mallaber: Did my hon. Friend note that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was concerned about supporters of political parties? Does he not agree that that shows even more confusion about the intentions behind preventing people with party political affiliations from holding the position of registrar?

Colin Pickthall: I must confess that I did not pick that up—I must have dozed off for a moment. To be fair, the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman has not been written into the amendments. If that reflects what the Opposition mean by impartiality, however, the amendments would rule out another 20-odd million people—or however many people voted in the last general election.

James Gray: To clarify the point, the part of amendment No. 305 that deals with political affiliations reflects precisely the conditions that apply to all senior civil servants above grade 7, or perhaps grade 5. Such people are not allowed to be members of any political party or to have affiliations of any kind. I may be ready to concede the point about past affiliations, but it is important that the registrar should have no current political affiliations.

Colin Pickthall: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and it is a step forward that he recognises the problem with the reference to the past.

Peter Bradley: I am not entirely sure that the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is correct. One may not be permitted to retain membership of a political party if one is above grade 7 in the civil service, but no bar exists on one's having been a member of a political party.

James Gray: That is the point that I made.

Peter Bradley: In that case, I apologise. I am not entirely sure that that was the point that the hon. Gentleman made, but I am grateful that we have clarified the matter.

Colin Pickthall: The right hon. Member for West Dorset said that he recognised the difficulties—[Interruption.] I do not know where that came from. I meant the hon. Member for North Wiltshire.
 I return to the word ''affiliations'' in amendment No. 305. It is a difficult word that is almost infinitely applicable, as is ''association'' in an earlier amendment. For example, it could apply to millions of trade unionists who do not belong to the Labour party but whose unions are affiliated to it. It could equally apply to trade unionists who vote Conservative or Liberal, as many do. They could all be ruled out by the word ''affiliations'' because their organisations are affiliated to the Labour party, although they have nothing to do with it. That does not apply to all civil service unions, but it applies to some. 
 To follow up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made in an intervention this morning, I find the comparisons with employment tribunals, other tribunals and the magistrates' system compelling. The law recognises that we all have biases; we all have strong views. We might even have ideologies that are distinct—many people are members of political parties. However, the law demands—as magistrates or tribunal members, for example—that we temper those views to consider evidence on its legal merits.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of magistrates courts, where individuals with clear political records serve, often with distinction.
 However, the system recognises that and goes out of its way to ensure that there is party political balance in the magistrates' system, often on a specific bench. Amendment No. 305 deals with the widespread concern that the registrar's office, as in so many other areas of public life, could be packed with Labour cronies or sympathisers.

Colin Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman makes my point, and that brings me on to the issue of impartiality. It is recognised that magistrates and tribunal members have political views and affiliations. Not all have, but many do. It is right that those views and affiliations be declared. I was a magistrate for 10 years, and I had to declare that I was a member of the Labour party. Magistrates who were Conservative party members had to do the same. There was not a favourable balance in my area of work, but a balance was at least sought. We did not have to declare how we voted or where our sympathies lay, but we had to indicate the clear partisanship that was expressed by joining a party, paying our subs and perhaps playing an active role in the party.
 I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has been a magistrate, but all magistrates, more so now since the enactment of human rights legislation, experience intense training in how to submerge—to put it rather crudely—their own strongly held views and apply themselves to the evidence and the law. The court clerks police that rigorously.

James Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the logic of the argument that we are advancing? As the tests laid down in the Bill are subjective, the tribunal and the registrar are being asked to make a subjective judgment. That is different from the position with magistrates. They have the law, which is perfectly clear, and they make objective judgments about whether the law applies in a particular place and about handing down a penalty as a result. That is why magistrates and the registrar are different.

Colin Pickthall: I do not want to launch into a wide argument on that point, but being a magistrate involves a lot of subjectivity as well. That is why magistrates are appointed partly for their local knowledge. If a particular case comes to court, they may apply their knowledge of, for example, a stretch of road that they know is dangerous because they drive along it.
 I do not quarrel with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say and I do not expect him to remember what I said on the first day of our deliberations, but I tried hard—whether I succeeded is another matter—to say that the issues of cruelty and utility were objective and could be defined, and that for most people that would be fairly clear.

Lembit Öpik: Roughly what type of training can be given to ensure that someone acts impartially? I am genuinely interested in the answer to that question.

Colin Pickthall: I was a magistrate a long time ago—I had to cease being one when I came to this place 10 years ago—but the training took place weekly and
 was intensive. It involved clerks going over cases in which they thought that we had gone astray and correcting our behaviour. It involved applying ourselves to the evidence, and there were many tests for evidence. If the hon. Gentleman speaks to any magistrate now, he will find that they complain about the sheer weight of the training that they have to undergo. Many magistrates have had to leave the service because they could not cope with all the extra training. I therefore imagine that any registrar who allowed their political or ideological affiliations or, indeed, their views on hunting to distort their judgments would be rapidly exposed to judicial challenge.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely considerate to me. He said that he believed that the tests for cruelty were objective, which is an important point. If that is so, which scientific, veterinary or clinical evidence or analysis would he cite to the registrar, or the registrar's office, as the effective benchmark against which all his judgments should be made?

Colin Pickthall: Rather than scientific or veterinary evidence, it would be more a question of common sense and one's personal morality. I do not want to repeat what I said, because it was a complex and lengthy argument, but if the hon. Gentleman reads what I said on the first day, he will see that I did my best at least to offer a definition of what constituted cruelty. That is valid enough for me at least.
 To conclude, for all the reasons that I have cited—which are simply attempts to analyse the absurdity of the amendments, not to comment on the wider intentions behind them—the amendments are ridiculous and desperate. I hope that we will dismiss them fairly rapidly and move on to more cogent matters.

Peter Luff: I just want to tease out one or two aspects of the amendments. The Government do not always have a good record of appointing impartial people to public bodies—one thinks, for example, of the BBC—but they do have a good record in the case of hunting, because Lord Burns chaired the major investigation. Some of us thought that it would be impossible to find someone so—[Interruption.] I hear comments from Labour Members. I am a reasonable man, so I will use the plural and say that Governments do not have a good record of appointing independent people. I do not mind that too much because Governments are elected to implement their policies and it is probably natural that important public bodies have people who agree with those policies appointed to them. Sometimes I am not terribly fussed about political bias because I understand that Governments have a right to have their policies delivered on the ground by the organisations that they have set up. The Government's policy is to ban hunting and so one worries about the independence of the person appointed to such a crucial job. I am being unfair on the Minister, but he knows what I mean. The Bill bans most forms of hunting, although it will allow some to endure. It is right to be concerned about the independence of the individual in question.
 To be fair to the Government, they have used an independent procedure to consider the matter. The character of the chairman of their major commission of inquiry makes him a splendid example of the kind of person I hope to see appointed as registrar. I want to make a point to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire about a flaw in paragraph (a). When he started his work, Lord Burns had little or no knowledge of hunting with dogs. He has certainly acquired that knowledge and is now probably one of the greatest experts in the country. Do we need paragraph (a) of new subsection (1A)? Does the individual need to have 
''a good knowledge of hunting with dogs'',
 or will he acquire it during the course of his or her work?

James Gray: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I may well be ready to go some way down the road with him. However, will he not concede that given that the tests are subjective and that the Bill does not lay down precisely what judgment the registrar must make, it will be necessary for him to understand, for example, what is meant by a pack of hounds and how a pack operates? Otherwise, how can he hope to make any kind of subjective judgment?

Peter Luff: I accept and understand my hon. Friend's point. However, it seems to me that the reasonably intelligent human being who is likely to perform the role could learn that quite quickly and would not need to have it in his blood.

Hugo Swire: Surely the difference is that Lord Burns was able to acquire his knowledge as a result of receiving an enormous amount of literature and many representations. He was able to do that, to an extent, at his leisure. The first pronouncement that the registrar makes—although it will be open to challenge and there will be a tribunal—will affect the hunt that is asking for the decision. The registrar might, over a period of months or years, acquire sufficient knowledge to make an informed judgment, but the initial decisions might be prejudiced through ignorance.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I had similar concerns about the independence of judgment of the new chairman of the Food Standards Agency, but the Government again found a very good candidate who has proved to be genuinely independent and has made a series of good decisions since his appointment. It is possible to find such people. Although, in that case, the individual had a detailed knowledge of his subject; he knew about the microbiology of food and was already an expert, so he fulfilled the equivalent of the criterion in paragraph (a). I am open to persuasion on this point. A month or two's training in the highways and byways of the hunting world might suffice to make an independently minded person sufficiently qualified to fulfil the criteria.

Mike Hall: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that the registrar would need practical knowledge of hunting, or is he talking about theoretical knowledge? If the registrar had to have practical
 knowledge, would he be able to get that without associating with people who hunt?

Peter Luff: He will not be able to do his job without associating with people who hunt because he will be hearing evidence from them. He will have to associate with them. If he does not associate with them—

Mike Hall: The term ''association'' is in the amendment. Read the amendment.

Peter Luff: Funnily enough, that brings me to my second point. I was going to make a similar point. It is an interesting question. I support the spirit of the amendments and I think that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) does as well. There is agreement on the spirit of the amendments; the question is whether they will deliver the practical outcome. I worry what would happen if, during the course of the registrar's appointment, he or she was seen to become biased and to be taking a pro- or anti-hunting view that was unhelpful in the context of the role. Does the amendment meet that objection? If my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire presses the amendments to a vote, I will probably support them because they are right in spirit, but the practical implications may not be quite what he meant and I am concerned that they should be.

Rob Marris: I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman, because the effect of amendment No. 305 would be the reverse of what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire intends.

Marion Roe: Order. Please will you speak more loudly, Mr. Marris? I find it difficult to hear what you are saying.

Rob Marris: I apologise, Mrs. Roe. You have reminded me of that before. I shall try to do as you ask.
 Many Committee members are concerned that the Bill will be a lawyer's charter. If amendment No. 305 were incorporated into the Bill, it would exacerbate that. Adding subsection (1A)(a), which refers to ''good knowledge'', would increase the level of subjectivity, because the test of good knowledge is almost entirely subjective. Similarly, paragraph (b), which would require the registrar to be 
''entirely impartial as to hunting'',
 would be a subjective test. Paragraphs (a) and (b) would lead to a great deal of judicial review. Many people who have strong feelings about hunting have access to or own substantial resources.

Peter Luff: On both sides.

Rob Marris: On both sides, as the hon. Gentleman says. Pro-hunting and anti-hunting groups and individuals have considerable resources. It is likely that there will be a great deal of litigation, anyway, but amendment No. 305 would introduce grounds for even more.
 Furthermore, paragraph (c) is redundant, if anything, but might also lead to litigation. It is redundant because the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that he wants something in the Bill 
 that is similar to what applies to all senior civil servants. I believe that I have not misquoted him. I cannot conceive that this or any subsequent Secretary of State would, for example, appoint as registrar someone who was known to be active in a political party, whether a small party or a big party that is represented in the House of Commons. Similarly, it is extraordinary to think that a Secretary of State would appoint someone who was known to be partial about hunting.

James Gray: I was not for a second suggesting that the Secretary of State would do that. It is very carefully and clearly laid down in the code of conduct for civil servants and in their contracts that they may not take any part in party political activity. They cannot join a party or canvass—they cannot participate in a variety of activities. They may vote but nothing else. The amendment simply seeks to lay down very plainly the same restrictions for the registrar.

Rob Marris: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. If that is the hon. Gentleman's intention, it would have been better if he had amended clause 9(6) to say that a person who serves as the registrar would be a senior civil servant within the meaning of the Bill.

Peter Bradley: I rise again on exactly the same point. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are being somewhat misled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire? [Interruption.] Perhaps unwittingly. He keeps praying in aid arrangements for senior civil servants, but they are not what he proposes in the amendment, in which he refers to individuals who neither have nor have had any membership of or affiliation with a political party. The hon. Gentleman goes a great deal further than the civil service code. We must be clear about exactly what he proposes, because it is punitive and irrational.

James Gray: I have conceded that point.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he has conceded the point. I am delighted. If he wants to cover the senior civil servant angle, he might reintroduce the amendment on Report as an amendment to clause 9(6). On that basis, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Ian Cawsey: I wish to make a few brief comments about the amendments, which I oppose for the reasons that I shall outline. This morning, I intervened briefly when the hon. Member for North Wiltshire introduced the amendments. I said that I had great concerns about the definition of party political affiliation. In fairness, he replied that he had chosen as the definition of ''party'' those parties that were represented in the House of Commons, because there was a difficulty in defining what constituted a political party, other than those that have elected Members.

James Gray: That is not what I said. I referred to the political parties in this place that are coming to a view on the subject of hunting. I was not referring to the Screaming Lord Sutch Raving Loony party nor any other outside party, but to the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the Welsh nationalists—the parties in this place that are coming
 to a view on hunting with hounds. That is why people who are affiliated to parties in this place should not be able to be appointed as a registrar.

Ian Cawsey: I am grateful for that clarification from the hon. Gentleman. If the Bill becomes law, however, it will be an Act of Parliament, not an Act of Commons. Therefore, he does not deal with the anomaly that I raised this morning with regard to the Green party, which is not represented in the House of Commons, but is represented in the House of Lords.

Peter Luff: I am not sure of my electoral law, but an alternative approach might be to specify that it should be a party registered with the Electoral Commission.

Ian Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was going to say, but I am happy that he has done so.

Eric Martlew: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows well, as I do, the workings of the House of Lords. There is a group of peers called Cross Benchers, who do not have a political affiliation—although most of them usually vote Conservative—and they will play a part in the passage of the legislation.

Ian Cawsey: I accept much of what my hon. Friend says. My experience of the House of Lords is that the Government, whatever their political complexion, always believe that the Cross Benchers are against them.

Michael Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the independent Member of Parliament in the House of Commons may also have difficulties with this amendment? However, that Member, like the Cross Benchers in the House of Lords, always tends to vote with the Conservatives.

Ian Cawsey: I feel as if I am in the middle of an unintended ping-pong game. I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says—[Interruption.]

Marion Roe: Order. There is a babble of conversation. Could hon. Members please calm down so that I can hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Ian Cawsey: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. The discussion confirms my general point that the amendments are not helpful, despite the fact that the intentions behind them are good.
 My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made a good point about the difficulty of finding someone who has good knowledge of the subject and is also impartial. My experience shows that as people become more knowledgeable about this subject they tend to become more partial. 
 My main concern is, however, about party affiliation. I will give an illustrative example. One of my constituents—I selected him as an example as I know that he will not mind me naming him—is Sir John Mason. Some Opposition Members will know Sir John, because he is a former chairman of the Conservative party. He chaired its party conference in 1992. I know that with certainty, because I had the honour and delight of addressing a fringe meeting at 
 the most recent Conservative party conference and Sir John's name was given in the programme as a previous chairman. 
 The Conservative Government appointed Sir John Mason as the chairman of the Scunthorpe and Goole hospitals NHS trust, as it then was, with all the inevitable accusations of cronyism. Despite the fact that people thought that he had been appointed only because he was a senior Conservative, he was impartial, fair and did a good job. In fact, he did such a good job that, when his term finished and that trust was merged with another, he became chairman of the North Lincolnshire primary care trust—a job that he still does to this day. He was appointed to that latter post by a Labour Government, which shows that such accusations of cronyism are not always what they appear. I am not making a party political point on cronyism; my point is that the Governments of the day were both right in making those appointments. 
 Under the proposed amendments, a person such as Sir John could not be appointed. I believe that to be wrong. Transparency is much more important. People must know whether someone has a party political affiliation. If it is then thought that that person is not doing the job in an impartial way, there should be a process by which they can be removed. That is more important than excluding many people who have affiliations to political parties that have been successful in an election to the House of Commons. 
 I do not wish to go down the route again of saying that a member of the British National party, which has been mentioned several times after I mentioned it first, could be the registrar if the amendment were agreed. It would be perverse for any amendment to allow such a person to be appointed but not a supporter or affiliate of a political party represented in the House of Commons. If the amendments were successful, we would find it difficult to find a bland, sterile, airbrushed, empty-headed person who would be willing to do the job. It is the sort of person one would find in Hello! magazine, although that would not always be the case. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) would be disbarred from such a role, but he is in Hello!, in which we see him cooking, drinking wine and pictured on the roof of his flat, presumably on urban fox patrol. Even Hello! cannot be a source of inspiration for us.

Lembit Öpik: I am delighted that hon. Members finally got their post and thought to themselves that, at last, their annual subscription to Hello! had been worthwhile.

Ian Cawsey: I just hope that the curse of Hello! magazine does not come back to haunt the hon. Gentleman. We all noted with amusement that his relationship was described as high-octane, which perhaps means that he has lead in his pencil. I am not absolutely sure.
 For all the reasons that I have outlined, if the amendments are agreed in their current form, they will not do a service to the Bill. Moreover, they will make the appointment of a registrar, which we all agree will be an extremely important post, more difficult to make.

Edward Garnier: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he let us know to which charity he will be giving the whip-round money for managing to get in the reference that he just made?

Ian Cawsey: I am a democrat at heart and if we want to have a vote about that, I will happily participate and abide by the result.

Judy Mallaber: I am rather concerned about the recent references, particularly to what is known as the curse of Hello! magazine, but we will pass that by.
 Does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly perverse to remove people solely because of their party political affiliation when there are differing views within each political party? For example, my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Amber Valley, Mr. Philip Oppenheim, was against hunting. Therefore, to be excluded solely by virtue of one's party political affiliation would be a shame.

Ian Cawsey: I entirely agree. I should say that, as someone who has been a member of the Labour party for 26 years, I have had to learn to adopt all sorts of views. [Laughter.]
 The amendments would not be helpful to the Bill in their current form, so I hope that the Committee will join me in rejecting them.

Alun Michael: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) has brought the Committee's attention to the fact that political experience is valuable and that the best people in all political parties, through their experience of representing communities, bring considerable value to our public life. That is the right point against which to judge the way in which we treat any public office, such as the registrar that we are considering now.
 I place on record that I was disappointed earlier today when the hon. Member for North Wiltshire would not give way, although he has every right to make that decision. A comparison of what he said earlier about Wandsworth with columns 359 to 360 of Tuesday's Hansard will show that he introduced an unacceptable level of distortion, which was extremely regrettable. It is also rather sad that in talking about Wandsworth, he made no reference to the refutation of his inaccurate and misleading comments to that borough on Tuesday and offered no apology either to Wandsworth or to this Committee. 
 The hon. Gentleman used several examples to explain his concerns about the appointment of a registrar. He said that the registrar would find it difficult to determine an application unless the House had answered such questions as, ''Is shooting more or less cruel than hunting with dogs?'' We have dealt with that question in previous debates—I do not intend to go over old territory—and answered the hon. Gentleman's points in full. 
 The registrar will have to consider the written representations from the applicants and any evidence that is provided by the prescribed animal welfare body and on the basis of that information decide whether he is satisfied that the proposed activity involving dogs passes each of the two tests set out in clauses 8(1) and 8(2). We have been through the contents of those two 
 subsections and the nature of those tests fully in the past few days and so I will not repeat them. The registrar must then decide objectively on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the same civil level of proof will be applied by the registrar as by the tribunal.

Edward Garnier: A moment ago the Minister mentioned the prescribed animal welfare bodies. Will we learn which they are before the completion of this Committee stage?

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman should contain himself until we come to that sort of detail at a later stage. I was dealing with the question that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said would be a problem for the registrar. The Burns committee concluded that in general terms lamping involves less suffering than hunting and is efficient. Burns indicated, however, that in some circumstances hunting with dogs might be less cruel than the alternative. The evidence points strongly to that general conclusion in respect of ratting.
 Where there is an element of doubt, there is an opportunity for the case to be made. The applicant who seeks to undertake the activity can show the utility in what he needs to undertake and demonstrate that the activity undertaken with dogs involves less likelihood of suffering than the alternatives. That is the sort of question that the registrar and subsequently the tribunal will need to decide. It is entirely inappropriate to suggest that blanket decisions on whether one type of activity is crueller than another will be used unless the evidence is clear. Burns indicated that there are circumstances in which the reverse might be the case. That is the whole point of allowing an applicant to make the case fairly and reasonably and to produce supporting evidence. That is what the registrar must consider.

James Gray: Perhaps the Minister would clarify what might be the circumstances under which the registrar might conclude that hunting with dogs was less cruel than lamping.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point again. Lord Burns said in conclusion that he saw evidence that there might be circumstances in which that would be the case. [Interruption.] The system of having a registrar provides an opportunity for people to provide information to show the circumstances in which that might the case. That is why it is fair and reasonable.

James Gray: What are they? What might they be?

Alun Michael: The hon. Member burbles away, asking ''What, what, what?'' He needs to make an application if he thinks that he can make the case. He has the opportunity to do so. That is the fairness in the Bill.
 I am sure that one issue on which the Committee can agree is that the registrar should be impartial and seen to be impartial in discharging his or her responsibilities under the legislation. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment has been tabled with that in mind, I have some sympathy and I can reassure him and the rest of the Committee on the point. The 
 detailed terms of the amendment are unnecessarily prescriptive and in defining the criteria of eligibility in that way, the amendment can run into difficulties. 
 A number of hon. Members have pointed to inconsistencies and although the hon. Gentleman does not seem willing to withdraw his amendment, he seems to accept that he has got it wrong. For example, to dictate that a person who had ever been a member of a party represented in this House would be disqualified for appointment as a registrar seems entirely unreasonable. I can see no reason why an individual who joined the Conservative party, for example, perhaps for only a short while should be discriminated against in this way. Following my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Doon—[Interruption.]

Ian Cawsey: We are very optimistic in my constituency of Brigg and Goole, so Brigg and Doom is rather inappropriate.

Alun Michael: I thought it was Doon, not Doom but I stand corrected. There are many who are active in political parties and who can still be objective and impartial. However, the system will take care of such issues. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) suggested that Governments have not done too well in appointing independent people. In fact, both this Government and the previous Conservative Governments have a good record on such appointments. Through their work, the system of appointments has been successively tightened, and the training, support and requirements on individuals have been professionalised in such a way as should provide the hon. Gentleman considerable reassurance.
Mr. Luff indicated assent.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman indicates that it does.
 The appointment of the registrar will be undertaken according to the Nolan procedures on public appointments. The procedures should therefore command trust and widespread support. The requirements for the post of registrar that the amendments seek to achieve—namely, that the person discharging the responsibilities under the legislation be impartial—are addressed through the Nolan procedures. Also, the registrar will be in the employment of the civil service and will thus, by definition, be required to act wholly impartially in his work. 
 In clarification of a point about the restrictions on civil servants, the restriction is not on membership of a political party, but on political activity. In summary, it applies to all senior civil servants of grade 5 and above, and to many more junior grades, particularly those involved in policy-making. As a senior civil servant, the registrar will be precluded from taking part in any party political activity under the terms and conditions of his service.

Hugo Swire: The Minister talks about training for officials in such positions. Does he propose that the registrar should have any training, and if so what sort?

Alun Michael: I am entirely happy that the systems of the civil service will take care of that, and will ensure that the appropriate training and induction for the role are put in place. The system is tried and tested: various regulatory posts already deal with sensitive issues, such as the Charity Commission. We are not on new territory. Ensuring that people who are selected for various roles have a capacity for objectivity is the essence of the current system. People from different social and political backgrounds have shown professionalism, and been fair and objective when put in various sensitive roles.

Gregory Barker: I am still concerned about the registrar's ability to be objective without sufficient scientific, clinical, or veterinary evidence to draw on or to establish a benchmark for him. The Minister referred to the Burns report, and the comment on lamping. However, the report states under 9.54 and 9.55 that in the event of an introduction of a form of licensing, further research will be necessary, in respect of the comparative welfare implications of different methods of killing foxes. However, the Minister has not referred to the clear recommendations in the Burns report for further research before decisions can be made.

Alun Michael: The more information that comes available through research, the more will be available to the registrar. As always, however, we must take decisions in public life. The registrar or a tribunal will have to take decisions in accordance with the evidence available.
 The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) seemed genuinely puzzled about the operation of the system, so I shall try to explain again. It gives the applicant the chance to produce evidence to show that the activity that he wishes to undertake with dogs satisfies the test in clause 8. The system provides an opportunity for a designated animal welfare organisation to produce counter-evidence against the application, or even evidence in support of it, which might be appropriate in some circumstances. The system then leaves the decision to the neutral and objective process that is represented by the registrar and the tribunal. 
 The point about objectivity is important: the registrar must apply the clearly set out tests of utility and least suffering to the evidence put forward by the would-be applicant and the prescribed animal welfare body. On the hon. and learned Gentleman's specific point, the registrar has to be satisfied according to the civil burden of proof. The registrar will decide after an objective assessment of the evidence and the circumstances of the application. The registrar's case-by-case determination of whether applications pass the two tests will be different from Lord Burns's task, which was to inquire into a wide range of general issues concerning hunting with dogs throughout England and Wales. The registrar's post is therefore suitable for an experienced civil servant or someone recruited to the civil service. 
 It is sad that some Opposition Members have shown disrespect for the standards of professionalism observed by the civil service, which has stepped back from the aspersions cast by the hon. Member for 
 North Wiltshire. Given my reassurances on the serious points that underpin his amendment, I hope that he will not press it and will support the Bill as it stands.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification, which I accept, that the registrar will consider those matters to the civil standard of proof. He has defended the impartiality of the civil service, and, as a Minister, why should he not do so? I hope that any Government Minister of any political persuasion would do the same.
 What are the likely levels of remuneration, expenses and staff? Presumably, the Government have thought about those issues, which are built into clause 9(5). I do not want to hold the Minister to a specific figure, but can he give me a general idea of the expenditure in those areas?

Alun Michael: Not at this point, but the work is proceeding. I hope that Opposition Members would also defend the impartiality and professionalism of the civil service. When we were in opposition, I sought to respect the way in which it carried out its work.

James Gray: It is disappointing that, during a discussion of something as dry, technical and straightforward as the precise nature of the person who should become the registrar, the Minister should lower himself to accusing me of being rude to senior civil servants. Throughout my remarks this afternoon, I have gone out of my way to say that the registrar should be someone like a senior civil servant. My elder brother is a senior servant and I worked for three years in the Minister's Department, DEFRA, as a special adviser. I have nothing but the highest regard for civil servants in that Department and others. It is extraordinary that he should try to justify his remarks by accusing me of having anything other than the highest regard for senior civil servants. If I gave any other impression, it was, of course, incorrect. If one examines the record, one will find that I did not give such an impression; indeed, exactly the opposite is the case.
 I have said throughout that I am seeking the same standards and objectivity in the person appointed as one finds among senior civil servants. The registrar should have three qualities. First, they should be knowledgeable, which is one thing that senior civil servants are. The people who are advising the Minister must be knowledgeable on hunting otherwise they would have been unable to draft the Bill. It is reasonable that we should seek a registrar who is knowledgeable or who will become knowledgeable upon their appointment. 
 Secondly, the registrar should have no party political bias. We have debated whether that should include parties in this House or parties recognised by the Electoral Commission, which is an interesting but not a central issue. Members of this House will decide whether hunting should be banned and/or registered in a particular way. The Conservative party broadly supports hunting and the Labour party broadly opposes it. If the registrar had a high-profile affiliation with the Labour party or the Conservative 
 party, it could therefore reasonably be presumed that he or she was biased. That is why, just as senior civil servants—

Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman has made the point about party political affiliation on several occasions, but there is a free vote on the issue in the House of Commons. Hon. Members on both sides of the House take different views; to reduce his argument ad absurdum means that anyone with an opinion about anything would be precluded from becoming registrar.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is right. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is the only member of the Labour party in this House who is in favour of foxhunting. There may be others and I would be happy to hear what they have to say. [Interruption.] Let us not go down that track. My point is that civil servants of grade 5 and above are not allowed to be Members of Parliament, or high-profile members of a political party because they have to serve whichever Government is in power. My elder brother is in the Foreign Office; he was chairman of the Conservative party at Glasgow university but he gave up party political affiliations when he joined the Foreign Office at the age of 21 and since then has had no dealings of any kind with any political party. He is probably rather embarrassed that his younger brother has become a Conservative Member of Parliament. He is a classic civil servant and would have nothing whatever to do with any political party. That is the independence of mind that we want the registrar to have.
 However, I accept that there was an error of drafting in the amendment, which includes the words ''or has had'', which would be incorrect—I made the point three times to the Parliamentary Private Secretary—as it would prevent my elder brother from being a Foreign Office civil servant, for example. 
 The question of how the political parties are defined also arises. Perhaps that should be dealt with as part of the Electoral Commission, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested; it is something with which we could tinker. As the clause 8 tests are subjective, it is crucial that we demonstrate that the registrar will be impartial in applying them. If, for example, he were a member of the League Against Cruel Sports, or a former official of the Countryside Alliance, it would be impossible for him to be seen to apply the tests objectively, in an unbiased way. It is therefore most important that the high standards should be applied to the registrar. 
 I take comfort from the fact that Minister said that the Nolan standards will be applied to the appointment, and I agree with him that by and large the appointments made under those standards—Lord Burns is the most notable—have been unbiased. 
 I accept that the amendments would have greater clarity if they were redrafted and I shall not press them to a Division as they are not central to our proposals. However, I take comfort from the fact that the Minister accepts the principle behind them: that the registrar and the tribunals must be above suspicion of 
 bias. The amendments were tabled to establish that important principal.

Alun Michael: In making his intentions clear, the hon. Gentleman enables me to say that I agree entirely that the standards must be achieved.

James Gray: I am most grateful for the Minister's assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tony Banks: I want to explain my position. Having voted against clause 8, logically, I should vote against clauses 9 to 38. Yesterday, my regional Whip showed me my voting record, which is sent to the local party. It stated that I had voted only once against the Government, which was a calumny—it will do me no good when my local party sees that. I am therefore delighted to say that this is a Government Bill and I am now able to vote against the Government on 38 occasions.

Edward Garnier: Surely the hon. Gentleman has a far greater problem than he has admitted, because although this is a Government Bill, there is, as I understand it, a free vote. May I suggest that he continues with his intention of voting against the Government on Government Bills that are whipped? Then we will be much happier.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - The hunting tribunal

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in
schedule 2, page 23, line 41, at end insert— 
 '( ) he is free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 317. 
 Amendment No. 188, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 28, leave out from 'he' to 'has' in line 31.
 Amendment No. 176, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 30, after '(c36))', insert ''but derives no income from any activity associated with hunting wild mammals with dogs.''.
 Amendment No. 301, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 31, leave out 
 'the welfare of animals or'.
 Amendment No. 189, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert 
 '; and the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that the panel comprises equal (or approximately equal) numbers of persons with experience of animal welfare and management of land respectively.'.
 Amendment No. 302, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(3) No one shall be appointed to the panel who has been employed by, or is a member of, an organisation campaigning either for or against hunting with dogs.'
 Amendment No. 314, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 36, after 'appointment', insert 
 'which the Lord Chancellor shall publish by placing a copy thereof in the Library of the House of Commons'.
 Amendment No. 315, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 38, after '5', insert 
 'shall hold office for a period of no more than three years and'.
 Amendment No. 208, in 
schedule 2, page 25, line 1, at end insert 
 'as defined by the Bar Council and the Law Society.'.
 Government amendment No. 318.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Could you help the Committee? I hope that the Minister plans to speak early in the debate, because the purpose of Government—
Alun Michael indicated assent.

Peter Luff: My point of order is now unnecessary, Mrs. Roe.

James Gray: We have a number of important matters to discuss and time is always of the essence, so I will try to make my comments on this substantial group of amendments extremely crisp. I have two initial points, however. First, my experience with the previous group of amendments makes it plain that I must spell out precisely what I mean, or one or two Labour Members may not grasp it. On this group, therefore, I shall spell out my arguments with some care. Secondly, this is an important group of amendments, because the precise way in which the tribunal is put together will be of great import to the proper operation of the Bill. As I said, I shall be as quick as I can, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak to each of the amendments briefly.
 Amendment No. 211 would secure for the tribunal the same high standing that the Minister expects the registrar to have, as we have just established. It would make it explicit in the Bill that the president of the tribunal had to be independent and to have no record on the question of hunting—he would have to be without bias. That reflects the wish of people on all sides of the debate to ensure that the tribunal is impartial in assessing the cases that come before it. If the tribunal is not impartial and does not consider cases in a balanced way, it will quickly come into disrepute, cases will go to the High Court on points of law and there will be all kinds of barneys. It is vital that the tribunal is seen by people in the countryside, on both sides of the argument, to be impartial in going about its business. 
 The amendment should be entirely uncontroversial, because it would benefit all sides in the debate and would reassure those outside the House that the processes in the legislation would be fair in practice. We have used the word ''bias'' in the amendment. The dictionary defines ''bias'' as 
''mental tendency or inclination, especially an irrational preference or prejudice''.
 The words ''irrational preference or prejudice'' are very important. We are saying that the president of the tribunal must have no irrational prejudice or preference; he must be entirely unbiased. 
 It is hard to see how the tribunal could reach an objective decision while the evidence is so spare and contradictory. None the less, it would stand at least a sporting chance of doing so if the president could demonstrate that he had no record of being either in favour or against hunting. I therefore hope that at least the principle behind amendment No. 211 is reasonably uncontroversial. 
 We now come to Government amendment No. 317 and amendments Nos. 188 and 176, which were tabled by Labour Back Benchers. All the amendments in the group seek broadly to ensure that veterinary surgeons will not be appointed to the tribunal, which is worrying. 
 Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 requires the Lord Chancellor to appoint people to the panel, and he is required to reach a clear and sensible judgment on the means by which he will do so. People may be appointed only if they are either 
''on the general list of veterinary surgeons''
 or have 
''experience relating to the welfare of animals or the management of land''.
 There is an inherent tautology in paragraph 5 because veterinary surgeons have experience relating to the welfare of animals and are therefore mentioned twice. 
 Given that the Bill is all about the welfare of animals, the Government and Labour Back Benchers are wrong to remove from the tribunal the very people who understand animal welfare. The Government have gone to great lengths to say that the Bill has nothing to do with people's behaviour because it concerns the welfare of animals. Veterinary surgeons are the best-qualified group of people on the welfare of animals in the country, and it is therefore bizarre that the Minister wants to exclude them from the tribunal. 
 Amendment No. 188, which has been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, would exclude vets from the tribunal, although they could theoretically be appointed under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 2. None the less, it would remove from the face of the Bill the explicit presumption that vets would be appointed to the tribunal.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman corrected himself within one sentence of his first statement. Amendment No. 188 would allow a vet's appointment, but it would not be an automatic right over and above anyone else. He pointed out that vets could be on tribunals but would not have an automatic right to be appointed within one sentence of stating that vets could not be on tribunals.

James Gray: My point is extremely plain, and I should like to expand it. We have agreed that determining the welfare of hunted animals, which could involve their being dispatched by dogs, shooting, gassing—still perfectly legal—or snaring, is difficult and subjective.
 Neither the Committee, Lord Burns—despite what the Minister said a moment ago—or the people who gave evidence in Portcullis house could reach a clear conclusion. Given that the matter is difficult and subjective, veterinary surgeons, who are used to looking at animals, should be explicitly required to be on the tribunal. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that I changed my mind in the course of one sentence. He would allow vets to be on the tribunal; I would require them to be on it.

Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he agree that it is likely that the amendments have been tabled because those who wish to get rid of hunting find it offensive that there is no veterinary evidence to support their case?

James Gray: I suspect that there are two issues. First, as my hon. Friend correctly said, those who wish to stop hunting realise that there is no veterinary opinion to support their case. If there were such evidence, they would be on their feet telling us about it. Secondly, they are concerned by, ''A Veterinary Opinion on Hunting with Hounds'', which is a document produced by 500 practising veterinary surgeons. They use technical language, which I do not understand because I am not a zoologist or a vet, and go to some lengths to show that hunting with hounds is by far the least cruel method of dealing with foxes. I suspect that the overwhelming body of veterinary opinion in this country is that hunting with dogs is by far the most humane way to deal with pests, particularly foxes. Labour Members are so concerned that they are determined to remove the presumption in favour of vets on the tribunal from the Bill.

Tony Banks: Something that the hon. Gentleman said earlier went unchallenged. He said that the most appropriate and obvious group of people who are interested in the welfare of animals is vets. However, vets are qualified and interested only in curing the problems and ills of animals. It is rather like saying that all doctors and GPs are interested in the welfare of human beings, whereas their job is to cure them. I can think of someone such as Dr. Mengele, who was a doctor but could hardly be considered to be interested in the welfare of people. The hon. Gentleman's comments do not follow logic.

James Gray: I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's intervention with the contempt that it deserves. The notion that Dr. Shipman is somehow typical of doctors is absurd.

Gregory Barker: It is a terrible slur on the national health service.

James Gray: As my hon. Friend says, it is terrible slur on doctors and I shall ignore it entirely. Most veterinary surgeons in the United Kingdom have the best interest of animals at heart. They know about animals and how to look after them, and it is only sensible for the hon. Gentleman to accept that they have animal welfare at the top of their personal agenda, in the same way as medical doctors have the welfare of human beings at the top of theirs. That is the case for all the doctors I know, and it is only
 reasonable to presume that vets are in precisely the same position in relation to animals.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Member for West Ham was a little muddled in what he was saying. Vets are the most knowledgeable practitioners in the field of animal welfare—that is what their job is about—whereas those who are concerned about animals and work for animal welfare organisations might not have their concern backed up by similar knowledge.

James Gray: Unlike the hon. Member for West Ham, I am not seeking to belittle the interest that other animal welfare groups may have, and I will talk about that in a moment. However, it goes without peradventure that vets have the best interests of animals at heart, and it is only reasonable that vets who are experts in such matters should have the opportunity to sit on the tribunal.

Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I want to make progress on the arguments. It is easy to get diverted down interesting side avenues during such debates and I feel that we should crack on.
 Given that 63 per cent. of rural vets believe that hunting with dogs should continue, that we have agreed that the tests are subjective to a degree and that we do not know which method of dealing with foxes and other pests is least painful, it is reasonable that we should ensure that veterinary surgeons are appointed to the tribunal. As demonstrated by the Burns inquiry and admitted by Deadline 2000, there is no scientific evidence that hunting with hounds is more or less cruel. In answer to puzzled looks from Committee members, I quote from Mr. Thomas of Deadline 2000: 
''It may be that there is scientific evidence which is relied on the other way and that it is impossible to prove conclusively one way or another.''
 He accepted that it was not scientifically possible to prove conclusively one way or the other, which is why, when the tribunal is asked to come to such difficult decisions, it should have the benefit of the advice of veterinary surgeons. 
 The same applies to amendment No. 176, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester. It should fall from the same difficulty. Some vets will rely on hunting for their income, and there is no reason why they should not. If a horse is damaged while hunting, the local vet will look after it. Equally, the local hospital will look after the person who falls off the horse while hunting and breaks his arm or leg. That does not mean that the doctors, nurses and local hospital workers who look after that person are necessarily in favour of hunting. The vet who looks after the horse that has been damaged while hunting is as unbiased as any other vet. To say that the person appointed to the tribunal should be able to demonstrate that he has no financial interest in hunting would rule out every veterinary surgeon in the United Kingdom unless he could demonstrate that he was looking after only cats and dogs. The amendment is hopeless. 
 As an alternative to the arbitrary removal of vets from the tribunal, I advance the advantages of amendment No. 301, which would achieve roughly 
 the same objective as Government amendment No. 317. The Bill is unbalanced. On the one hand, it says that there should be animal welfare experience; on the other hand, land management experience; on the third hand, as it were, vets. That is almost tautologous. Amendment No. 301 is intended to correct that imbalance and ensure that there is someone who has knowledge of animal welfare on the one hand and someone who has knowledge and interest in land management on the other. 
 Incidentally, the Minister sometimes exposes his view of people who are in favour of hunting. He often talks about people who are interested in animal welfare and mentions the Countryside Alliance separately. He seems to indicate that, almost by definition, people who are interested in animal welfare are opposed to hunting. The Conservatives seek to remove that presumption from his mind. My interest in animal welfare stands up to scrutiny. I have the very highest interest in animal welfare and the fact that I hunt should not interfere with that high standing. 
 Amendment No. 301 counterbalances the inadequacies in the other— 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

James Gray: I am glad to see that, at 5.36 pm, we are sitting again. That gives me a massive 24 minutes to complete my remarks. However, I undertake to finish well in advance of 6 o'clock so that we can get back to our constituencies in good time, and take up the cudgels again on Tuesday.
 I was speaking to our amendments to schedule 2, which lays down the make-up of the hunting tribunal. I spoke briefly to amendment No. 211, which states that the president of the tribunal should be 
''free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.''
 That seems an unexceptional amendment to make. 
 I have set out my opposition to amendments Nos. 317 and 188, both of which delete the requirement for veterinary surgeons to be on the tribunal. Government amendment No. 317 is a particular sinister amendment, and I am curious as to why they have chosen to propose it. Similarly, amendment No. 176 states that vets who are on the tribunal should derive no income from hunting. That, by definition, would rule out most vets in England, many of whom derive income from looking after horses, for example. 
 Amendment No. 301 would correct a rather bizarre imbalance in the way in which the Bill has been drafted. At present, the Bill states that there should be an equal balance between people with animal welfare experience and those with land management experience. Surely it is more important for vets, who are truly qualified, experienced animal welfarists, to be on the tribunals than those who simply have 
''experience relating to the welfare of animals''.
 That is an entirely subjective and opaque phrase. One could argue that every pet owner in the country can claim to have some experience of animal welfare. We all do, presumably, but not to any reasonable or professional degree. 
 We are also puzzled by the Minister's definition of people who have animal welfare experience. In this Committee only recently, he said: 
''we have listened to animal welfare organisations, but we have also listened to the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 January 2003; c. 223.]
 The clear implication is that the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers cannot be categorised as organisations that are concerned with animal welfare. We entirely deny such an implication. 
 Government amendment No. 317 is bizarre. Amendment No. 301 would produce an equal balance between land managers and animal welfare organisations of one type or another and, largely on the basis of drafting, is vastly preferable to the Minister's attempt in Government amendment No. 317. 
 Amendment No. 189, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, seeks to ensure that membership of the panel reflects a balance between land management and animal welfare interests. Again, it is an unexceptional aim, and we do not see much wrong with it. However, we are slightly puzzled—perhaps sceptical or cynical—as to why the hon. Gentleman, who sought to remove vets from eligibility for the tribunal, has tabled the amendment. We are slightly curious as to what lies behind it. 
 We suspect that the amendment may be an attempt to ensure that employees, supporters or officers of known anti-hunting organisations have a greater chance of being on the tribunal than people who are known to be pro-hunting. Simply being employed by LACS or the RSPCA does not automatically mean that one has more experience with animal welfare than a farmer, huntsman or, indeed, an employee of the Countryside Alliance. That seems to be the presumption behind the combination of amendment No. 176, which says that vets who derive income from hunting should not be allowed to sit on the tribunal, and amendment No. 189, which states that 
''the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that the panel comprises equal . . . numbers of persons with experience of animal welfare and management of land''.
 The amendments seem to be fine, but we are somewhat suspicious about the reasoning behind them. 
Dr. Whitehead rose—

James Gray: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would rather not take interventions, because of time constraints. He will have an opportunity to speak to his amendment later.
 The next four amendments in the group—Nos. 302, 314, 315 and 208—are extremely non-controversial and aim simply to improve the drafting of the Bill. Amendment No. 302 states: 
''No one shall be appointed to the panel who has been employed by, or is a member of, an organisation campaigning either for or against hunting with dogs.''
 It seems absolutely straightforward and obvious that neither an employee of LACS nor an employee of the Countryside Alliance should be on the tribunal. It would be sensible to include the amendment in the Bill. 
 The earlier intervention of the hon. Member for Worcester was interesting. He indicated—he did not go that far but seemed to be moving towards indicating—that people such as Mr. John Bryant, whose CV I laid out earlier and who the Minister prayed in aid last week, would be suitable as a registrar or tribunal member. We certainly do not agree with that judgment. We do not think that he would be appropriate for any such post. 
 Amendment No. 314 states that the Lord Chancellor shall place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the terms of appointment for the president of the tribunal. That is perfectly straightforward and sensible. Obviously, such appointments should be transparent. We want to know what tasks the Minister has given the president, and it is uncontroversial and sensible to ask that the terms of reference be placed in the Library. 
 Amendment No. 315 states that the president of the tribunal 
''shall hold office for a period of no more than three years''.
 It is necessary and sensible to specify that in the Bill. Sometimes fresh ideas or new approaches are needed, and some tribunal presidents may become tired and need refreshing after a period in office. Therefore, amendment No. 315, which would limit the term to only three years, is eminently sensible. 
 Amendment No. 208 states that the Lord Chancellor's power under the Bill to dismiss tribunal members for misbehaviour should be for misbehaviour 
''as defined by the Bar Council and the Law Society.''
 Again, that is hardly a controversial amendment. We are simply saying that the Lord Chancellor should not be able to dismiss anyone for private reasons. It is very important that that should not occur or be seen to occur. Defining misbehaviour in such a manner would be a net improvement to the way in which the tribunal operates. 
 Government amendment No. 318, which changes the composition of the tribunal at each sitting, is reasonably acceptable. It neither adds to nor takes away from the force of the Bill, and we are content to accept it. 
 The last group of amendments, namely amendments Nos. 183, 213, 214, 215—

Marion Roe: Order. That is a separate group.

James Gray: I beg your pardon, Mrs. Roe.
 All I shall say, once again, is that the tribunal should not only be dispassionate, serious and professional, but be seen to be those things by the people appearing in front of it. If there is any question of its being biased or lacking professionalism, the people who come before it will for that reason not 
 respect it. We believe that our amendments would add such impartiality and professionalism to the tribunal in a way that the Bill does not now provide for. 
 We are particularly concerned about those who would remove from the Bill the presumption in favour of veterinary surgeons. We believe that such proposals have been made because it is becoming clear that veterinary opinion in general is in favour of hunting with dogs. Those who believe that the tribunal should be in place in order to abolish hunting would not like to see the vets on it. That is why there is one amendment from the Minister and two separate amendments from Back Benchers—I presume that that happened by chance—that would effectively remove from the Bill the presumption in favour of vets. 
 The tests of cruelty and utility are subjective, technical and difficult. It is therefore extremely sensible that there be a presumption that the one group of experts in the nation who know about animal welfare, who have spent six, seven, eight years or longer at university in order to learn about it, and who are daily practitioners in veterinary surgery, should serve on the tribunal. We shall therefore resist the amendments that seek to remove them, and shall resist others that we have briefly spoken to. Most of our proposals are uncontroversial, and I hope that the Committee will be ready to accept them.

Alun Michael: Again, I must start by correcting the hon. Gentleman on an impression that he sought to give of remarks I made earlier. I said that I had listened to animal welfare organisations, to organisations such as the Countryside Alliance and to organisations with land management interests such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association, in response to the hon. Gentleman's making it clear that he himself would not listen to animal welfare organisations, and would listen only to such organisations as the Countryside Alliance, to which he referred in putting out his press release.

James Gray: Once again, the Minister falls into precisely the trap that I described. In the quotation that I made from Hansard last week, he differentiated between animal welfare organisations on the one hand and the Countryside Alliance on the other. A moment ago the Minister said that I did not want to listen to animal welfare organisations, and that all I do is listen to the Countryside Alliance. Our point is that the Countryside Alliance is an animal welfare organisation.

Alun Michael: I understand that point as well as the hon. Gentleman.

James Gray: Why did the Minister say it then?

Alun Michael: I was making a different point, because the hon. Gentleman was seeking to distort my reasons for making that comment.
 The amendment would require the president of the tribunal to be 
''free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.''
 The sentiment is absolutely right, but it would be bad law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw 
 that amendment, because it would imply that bias is permissible in the roles set out in other legislation, in which there is no such prohibition on bias. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would wish that. I am happy to confirm the importance of the president's being free from bias, and am confident that the appointment system is designed to ensure that he is indeed free of bias. That assumption must be within the system of judicial appointments. 
Gregory Barker rose—

Alun Michael: Like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, I wish to make progress, in order to ensure that I can answer some of the points that hon. Members are concerned about. I wish to press Government amendments Nos. 317 and 318, but hope that amendments Nos. 188, 176 and 189 will not be pressed.
 Paragraph 5 in schedule 2 provides for the appointment of a panel from which members of the tribunal are to be chosen. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 provides for the appointment of those members to a particular sitting or hearing. The intention of the Bill is that when the tribunal hears substantial issues, such as appeals against a decision of the registrar, it shall consist of a legally qualified chairman and one member with experience relating to the welfare of animals and one with experience relating to the management of land. Paragraph (5) provides for the appointment of a panel from which those so-called wing members of the tribunal shall be selected. The balance within the panel is not the issue, it is the balance for the hearing. 
 Paragraph (5), as drafted, is misleading because it distinguishes between vets in subparagraph (a) and other wing members in subparagraph (b), who may be people with either animal welfare or land management experience. In considering this paragraph again we have concluded that it needs to be much clearer to distinguish between the panel members who have animal welfare experience and who may or may not be vets—many vets are not in favour of hunting—and those who have land management experience. As vets are clearly people who have animal welfare experience, there is no need to refer to them specifically in the paragraph as amendment No. 188 seeks to do. 
 With the Government amendment I am, in effect, agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, who wanted to delete the reference to vets. The complete deletion of the reference to vets makes amendment No. 176, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, redundant. It would have precluded the appointment of vets who derive their income from any activity associated with hunting wild mammals with dogs. It would have caused some difficulty. For example, would it be right to exclude someone because they had occasionally treated a foxhound or a horse used for hunting? I appreciate that my hon. Friend probably means a substantial or major part of their income, but it would be difficult to put that in the Bill. 
 Questions relating to candidates' interests are best dealt with through the existing procedures, and the appointment procedures would determine whether an appointment was inappropriate. I can give my hon. 
 Friend the assurance that he seeks about the appointments system. As I said, amendment No. 176 becomes redundant if Government amendment No. 317 is accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test tabled amendment No. 189, which would require the panel to have equal numbers. I hope that have dealt with that point to his satisfaction.

Alan Whitehead: I assure my right hon. Friend that his comments do indeed deal with the issue to my satisfaction. The Government amendments are equal to and if anything better drafted than those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and me. I will not press those this evening.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will not therefore go on too far on the point.

Michael Foster: Given what my hon. Friend has just said, I am delighted that the Government have taken on board our concerns about the original drafting of the Bill. We are not anti-vet, but we recognise that other professionals work in the field of animal welfare who do not happen to be vets. Amendment No. 176 simply sought to point out the potential bias that might be brought in if someone derived significant forms of income from hunting.

Alun Michael: I understand entirely. On either side of the argument, if people were deriving a large amount of income it might be inappropriate for them to be members of the panel. The appointment system takes care of the danger of bias.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman will have to see if he can catch your eye, Mrs. Roe. I should like to clear up the remaining points. If there is a moment or two I will be happy to give way later.
 A number of colleagues wanted to be clear about one point. The discretion for a legal chairman or president to sit alone is standard process and is 
 intended to enable issues of procedure, case management and other interlocutory matters to be dealt with quickly and efficiently, without the need to convene a three-person tribunal where the expertise of the panel members is of no relevance to that part of the proceedings. As I have said, it is intended that there would be the balanced tribunal with a membership of three for substantive hearings. 
 I have to resist amendment No. 301, which would attack the balanced composition of the tribunal that is established by the Bill, which is at the heart of the application and the appeal system. Indeed, its central principles not only recognise utility, but prevent cruelty. I must also resist amendment No. 302. My comments at the beginning of the group about the need to rely on existing well-tried procedures for ensuring impartiality apply here too. The amendment would prevent the appointment of wing members who are or have ever been members of organisations campaigning either for or against hunting. That is rather similar to the exclusion of political history in an earlier amendment. Of course, the system should ensure that people with a bias or who are involved in campaigning groups are not inappropriately appointed. 
 I must also resist amendment No. 208, which would fetter the Lord Chancellor's discretion to give misbehaviour as wide an interpretation as may be necessary. There are tried and tested systems for dealing with that issue. I am happy to give the hon. Member for North Wiltshire an absolute assurance that those systems would apply. The president, chairman and members will be acting judicially, not as quasi-barristers or solicitors, and the whole system, as the hon. Gentleman said, must be fair, seen to be fair and free from bias. I assure him that the system that will operate under the Bill will meet the requirements that he set out in his amendments. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 28 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.